I'll just say this. You're doing yourself a great disservice if you spend any substantial amount of time working the old PTs. Especially the games in those older tests. A great disservice. I'd start working backwards from the most recent available test on.

InBrief79 wrote:I'll just say this. You're doing yourself a great disservice if you spend any substantial amount of time working the old PTs. Especially the games in those older tests. A great disservice. I'd start working backwards from the most recent available test on.

I have to disagree with this. I did just about all of the PTs, and I didn't see any really significant differences. Even if you think the games are so different as to be useless (which I don't), the old PTs will still help with timing and concentration.

InBrief79 wrote:I'll just say this. You're doing yourself a great disservice if you spend any substantial amount of time working the old PTs. Especially the games in those older tests. A great disservice. I'd start working backwards from the most recent available test on.

I have to disagree with this. I did just about all of the PTs, and I didn't see any really significant differences. Even if you think the games are so different as to be useless (which I don't), the old PTs will still help with timing and concentration.

I'm not saying to entirely ignore the older PTs. I just said it would be a mistake to invest any substantial time learning and digesting them. The more recent LSATs have evolved from those 1990s tests. The question stems have changed. The games have you juggling conditionals and multiple setups. You definitely need to run through all the tests you can get your hands on. But the ones that need/require the most scrutiny and attention (and the ones you should measure your comfort level against) should be the most recent.

I found the PTs from 2005 onwards to be harder on RC (not necessarily harder questions but trickier answer choices), easier games, and less convoluted and lengthy but nonetheless more difficult LR. From my experience with the 2008 LSATs, I found the LR to be increasingly difficult compared to older LR in general, RC not as difficult as 2006-2007 RC sections, and LG to be harder than 2005-2007 LG sections but still way easier than the "old" PTs (before 2005). Just my opinion.

RC: Definitely HARDER with more complicated passages (though not necessarily longer) and tricker questions. LR: I found the question stems became shorter and less convoluted, answer choices a bit tricker but overal easier. LG: Although Games became easier, I do not like those maximum/minimum possibility questions.

Generally I would say older LR and recent RC help more. Lets see how this turns out in the coming LSAT.

Much of the disagreement about the relative ease/difficulty of the various tests derives from the different methods of attacking the exam. So does the disagreement of their relative value as practice material.

For those who are trying to learn the logic and attack the exam from that perspective, all the available practice exams have great value. The logic being tested this decade is the exact same as the logic that was tested last decade.

For these students, the consensus is that LR has gotten easier over time. The questions are more formalized and consistent now than they were. Those who master the earlier LR questions find the modern ones to be much easier. The same is true for the RC section questions. However, the consensus is that the reading passages have gotten more complex. Games have flowed both directions. The older games tend to be more difficult (and also include some game types we have not seen on an actual LSAT for a while). Then, the games started to get easier for a while. Lately, the trend has been reversing. I think the older games (of the modern types) provide great practice for everyone (considering the recent trend toward more difficulty).

My students are in this category. I recommend they pre-determine how many PTs they will take. Then, they should start with the oldest they will have time for. For example, if a student is projecting they will take about 50 PTs, they should start with PT 7 and work forward. If they will only be able to take about 40, they should start with PT 16 and work forward.

On the other hand, for those gaming the exam, the earlier exams have far less value. The modern gaming methods are not applicable to those exams. This applies mostly to LR. The older RC are still valuable as are the games.

My observation- newer RC's have more of those questions where you get it down to 2 answers, but there's always one right one like any other test, so maybe it just requires you being more careful and looking at the text. LR wise I think the new ones are almost the same, possibly easier. LG new ones are way easier I think, the ones I've found the hardest are 30-35. I'm doing some of the older ones sectionally right now, and I think these ones are a little easier too (19-28).

lakerfanimal wrote:My observation- newer RC's have more of those questions where you get it down to 2 answers, but there's always one right one like any other test, so maybe it just requires you being more careful and looking at the text. LR wise I think the new ones are almost the same, possibly easier. LG new ones are way easier I think, the ones I've found the hardest are 30-35. I'm doing some of the older ones sectionally right now, and I think these ones are a little easier too (19-28).

I just got done with PT 36....I was very happy to read that someone else found 30-35 the most difficult. I thought I was becoming retarded or something.

RC has gotten harder. Dual passages add a new layer of complexity, and answer choices are trickier than they once were.

LR has simply evolved. Question stems aren't as convoluted as they were before, but answer choices, as with RC, have gotten trickier. However, I find newer LRs easier personally. Just yesterday I did an LR from an old 20-some prep test and bombed it. Then I took an LR from a 45 test and got -0. Thus, at least for me, having a less convoluted question stem works better, even if answer choices tend to be a bit trickier than before.

As for how useful old PTs are- I recently faced the question of whether to purchase 19-28 LSAT series. I ended up doing it and I am pleased I did because I think that the LG training one derives from them is invaluable. When I took my first LSAT, I got -0 on LG and was amazed at how easy it was. It was only later that I realized that LGs were much easier than before and I simply hadn't been aware of that since I hadn't taken a prep test more recent than 38 before taking the LSAT itself. LG is by far my best section now and I think I find it easy precisely because I went through all the trouble with far more difficult older ones. Thus, it is my experience that if you master those, you'll be set with that section altogether.

That said, recent prep tests allow you to gauge where you stand far better. Focus on those and do old PTs if you're able to. Good luck!

kilo wrote:Ok so quick question. Should I head to borders to to 10 actual LSATs (19-28) or is that not even worth the trip considering ive been doing 29-38 with 53 sitting here as well.

It sounds like 19-28 won't really help me on games, and although the general practice is good for LR, they are not really structured similar at all.

That leaves RC as the only reason to work 19-28 to get any type of an accurate feel for the Feb test I'm taking in 8 days?

I second dresdendoll on most of those, but I think RC isn't that much harder, because I do as bad on the old ones. I'd say get it because LG and LR are easier in the new ones like she said, and the RC practice won't hurt you even if you find it easier

I actually find the RC dual passage to be perhaps the easiest part of the test. I think the games have gotten easier.

Like someone else said, I think LR has changed in that the questions have gotten simpler but they've added more variety and the answer choices are more complicated and sometimes just flat out "worse" (making it harder to select the "best" answer).